October 10, 2006

... for hotness over at Above the Law. I mean, really. What a picture! No wonder he has so much otherwise inexplicable confidence. And those other people you're comparing to him? Well, they just underscore how great he looked. And also, what's with the title "Deputy Dean"?

ADDED: Film clip, if you don't get the picture... and (especially) if you do.

OK, calm down. Perhaps you missed that I posted a serious response to the rational basis thread which has been completely ignored. I was excited to see such an active thread, but I guess I got to it too late?

HaloJonesFan: Why, when you mention homosexuality, must you immediately go to the salacious, such as porn?

I’ve got nothing against porn per se, but what the gay community really needs is a mainstream hit that shows the fullness of love and romance within a gay relationship.

As a matter of fact, straight America needs to see such a film a lot more than gay America does. Straight America still has plenty of distorted notions about what gay relationships are like.

In fact, I can think of many contributors to the Althouse threads whose world view would be greatly improved by seeing such a film.

I would propose a lighthearted gay (meaning homosexual) romantic comedy such as “Bridget Jones’s Diary” or like the many romantic comedies that Hollywood produced in the 1930s and ‘40s.

You could still call it “All the President’s Men.” It could be about a single (meaning unmarried) gay American president – in fact, the first gay president ever elected – and his humorous search for a husband while juggling his many responsibilities as commander-in-chief. It could be like the 1995 film “The American President” with Michael Douglas and Annete Bening.

A lesbian version of such a film would be perfectly fine, too. Why not make one of each?

OK, finally a comment, thanks edward. Why do you think it is absurd? Same-sex conception is being researched, and there are people that want to attempt it. It will be absurdly unethical to attempt it, it is unnecessary, it is a huge, foolish waste of resources. Love makes a family, right? What does claiming a right to attempt to conceive with someone of the same-sex say about same-sex reationships today, and probably forever, given that same-sex conception is not available today and probably never will be? It would be better to concede that same-sex conception is unethical and unnecessary, and give up the right to attempt it.

PS, you should probably respond in the rational basis thread, if you care to take on the challenge.

"HaloJonesFan: Why, when you mention homosexuality, must you immediately go to the salacious, such as porn?

I’ve got nothing against porn per se, but what the gay community really needs is a mainstream hit that shows the fullness of love and romance within a gay relationship.

As a matter of fact, straight America needs to see such a film a lot more than gay America does. Straight America still has plenty of distorted notions about what gay relationships are like.

In fact, I can think of many contributors to the Althouse threads whose world view would be greatly improved by seeing such a film.

I would propose a lighthearted gay (meaning homosexual) romantic comedy such as “Bridget Jones’s Diary” or like the many romantic comedies that Hollywood produced in the 1930s and ‘40s.

You could still call it “All the President’s Men.” It could be about a single (meaning unmarried) gay American president – in fact, the first gay president ever elected – and his humorous search for a husband while juggling his many responsibilities as commander-in-chief. It could be like the 1995 film “The American President” with Michael Douglas and Annete Bening.

A lesbian version of such a film would be perfectly fine, too. Why not make one of each?

Judging from his absurd ideas about rational basis, John Howard would benefit from seeing such a film.

And so would Mark Foley.

OK, finally a comment, thanks edward. Why do you think it is absurd? Same-sex conception is being researched, and there are people that want to attempt it. It will be absurdly unethical to attempt it, it is unnecessary, it is a huge, foolish waste of resources. Love makes a family, right? What does claiming a right to attempt to conceive with someone of the same-sex say about same-sex reationships today, and probably forever, given that same-sex conception is not available today and probably never will be? It would be better to concede that same-sex conception is unethical and unnecessary, and give up the right to attempt it.

PS, you should probably respond in the rational basis thread, if you care to take on the challenge. "

Tibore: I didn’t hijack anything. To begin with, it was HaloJonesFan who started the discussion about gay cinema, not me.

If, however, my lighthearted gay romantic comedy (“All the President’s Men”) were ever made, the gay president could select his husband from among three handsome men whom he knows well.

One could be a studly young law dean who looks just like Jed Rubenfeld.

The second could be a recently retired but still young out-of-the-closet former boy band member who looks just like LC Chasez.

And the third could be the gay governor of a small state who just happens to bear a striking resemblance to Howard Dean (as he looked a few decades ago – let’s hope).

Then, by the end of the film we’d discover which one he chooses to marry. It very well may be the handsomest one (which would provide the answer to Ann’s question), but the lucky man would also have to have a great personality.

And the gay president could also be a big fan of Deputy Dawg cartoons.

I didn't "start a discussion" about anything, I made a smartass remark about a man with his shirt of and the punnish nature of porno-movie titles. Sense of humor, motherfucker, do you speak it? PLEASE NOTE HERE THAT I AM USING THE TERM 'MOTHERFUCKER' IN AN ENTIRELY NON-SERIOUS WAY, IN THE CONTEXT OF WITTILY REFERENCING A PIECE OF POP-CULTURE, IN THIS CASE A QUOTE BY SAMUEL L. JACKSON AS SEEN IN THE MOVIE 'PULP FICTION'.

To Ann Althouse: Yesterday you deleted a post from Doyle that merely called one of your comments “stupid”?

Will you retain a post from HaloJonesFan that calls me an MF?

He says he’s only being humorous, but it’s abundantly clear from his tone and excessive use of capital letters that he’s being extremely aggressive – far too aggressive, inappropriately aggressive for a blog like yours.

Damn, Edward... what makes you think I was singling you out? I was making a joke about how no one's comments before the Professor's dealt with Deputy Dawg. It was a joke about the whole thread up till that point, not any one individual.